Great Producer in an Off Vintage vs. Good Producer in a Great Vintage

If price is equal, where do you believe the best values are found?

This question crossed my mind recently, when an e-mail blast for a 1998 d’Yquem came across my inbox, at a little less than 30% of what the 2001 is selling for, however still at a similar or higher price than many 2nd-tier 2001 Sauternes are currently selling. My reaction was, while relatively affordable, the '98 is probably not a great introduction to d’Yquem.

This got me thinking about producer vs. vintage. There are some wines (mostly local) which I follow year-in and year-out. Others (mostly European) I tend to cherry-pick what I think are good deals. I do not believe that the fine wine market is efficient enough that I can consider any $99 bottle to be equivalent in quality to any other $99 bottle, nor do I believe points are a reliable indicator of quality, so on wines I can’t taste in advance of buying, I need to make distinctions and these are (1) vintage and (2) producer. Or it’s (1) producer and (2) vintage.

Where do Berserkers believe the better values lie?

Several years ago in London we had a dinner to try to establish whether GC Burgundies in off vintages were better than village Burgundies in top ones. The answer, of course, was producer, producer, producer in every case!

Much of your question turns on what you call an “off vintage”. At least with Bordeaux, which is a large percentage of my purchases, what the critics and the market call off-vintage, I actually enjoy. Vintages like 2001, 04 and 08 had very nice selections at palatable pricing. I tend to buy more classified growths in these vintages, whereas I may be priced out of the so-called quality vintages, like 05, 09 and 10. In those vintages, I buy very solid, quality Crus. In vintages that I consider true off-vintages, like 02 and 07, I buy nothing.

I voted for a good producer in a great vintage but lots of variables. First off, where are we talking about and what vintage. In the past, I might be more tempted to stick with great producer, but these days, I think there are more good producers.

It is also getting to even agree on which vintages are great.

Tru dat.

And then, sometimes, there’s “off” vintages that one might consider to be excellent vintages — 2008 Burgundy is one of those for me.

I think you have to consider the region; my (incredibly general) rule of thumb has been in Napa going w off vintages from great producers is the play b/c the weather is more reliable and, for whatever reason, I have always thought there is less vintage variation in Napa (and most American wine in general). What I am saying is it is easier for me to identify a producer as opposed to a vintage (a great example is Caymus; I find the Caymus cab to be very distinctive in that is a bottle of Caymus, but they all taste like Caymus…regardless of it is the 07, 06 etc.)

In Europe (and specifically France),I tend to learn towards the vintage…b/c that is what I taste…a bottle of 09 Jadot La Beaune Burgundy tastes more like a different bottle of 09 Beaune Burgundy from another producer (of similar quality) than it tastes like a Jadot from a different year.

That has been at least my personal experience.

Sauternes is a special case because some years there is little botrytis, so the wine is really quite different, and not nearly as interesting, in those vintages.

It also depends on what producers you count in the first tier. If your definition for Sauternes is that only Yquem is first tier, then there are several other “second tier” producers that I would take over Yquem.

I think that really off vintages like 2004 in Burgundy are tricky. I would avoid without tasting, even from really good producers.

But, as others have said, there are a lot of really good vintages today that get overlooked, like 2001 and 2004 in Bordeaux and 2000, 2001 and 2008 in Burgundy. Many great values in those vintages as people don’t chase them. I think that in many cases these are the sweet spot.

Jadot is a great example. Their 2007s and 2008s are really good and were great bargains to boot.

As regards Bordeaux, we are the same (e.g., I think most critics under-appreciated the likes of Bdx '94, '01, and '04). Of the last, say, 5-6 years, I have noticed that what WA (and most other “professional” reviews) classifies as exceptional vintages or “vintages of the century” are generally sweetly ripe, hot, and low on acid for my taste/preference. Of course, there will always be exceptions.

For Burgundy, however, I tend to pay more attention to vintage for some reason. Never really thought about why, but I will try to dissect my reason(s) therefor.

Best,

N

I’d generally say producer, but when it comes to French wine and especially Sauternes then I’d definitely try to hedge my bets. E.g., the '99 d’Yquem was definitely a “picnic” wine and probably not worth whatever price it was released at. So this is not a poll where I could vote either way. I recall being slammed once for giving '96 d’Yquem is great review (96 pts or so) as it was supposed to be an off vintage and the major reviewers hadn’t reviewed the wine. In terms of the '98 d’Yuquem BUY it, it is definitely in the near great category (94-96) but it might not be as long lived as something like '90.
In terms of CA the answer is always producer for me. There are years where a few lesser wine might rise in my estimation, but it doesn’t change my wine buying much.

I agree that Burgundy are tricky in off vintages. But I wouldn’t call 2008 Bordeaux overlooked. This could have been a real value vintage if Parker didn’t come out and give it the overinflated score which even surprised most Chateau owners. Remember, Chateau Latour came out at $199 before Parker’s score. Everyone recommended 2004 Bordeaux as a vintage to load up on except Parker. Even James Suckling (a critic I don’t follow) dedicated an article in WS how overlooked 2004 Bordeaux was.

I don’t think I did. I mentioned 2008 Burgundy.

In the last couple of years, I have had a few 2004s that I have really liked. Perfect balance. Not too hot; not too heavy. Very elegant.

In the Mosel and most of Champagne, the good and great producers wines cost more or less the same anyway, once you exclude Selosse and Muller.

I love the 2001 vintage for Sauternes and Barsac but recently a 2001 Climens was very good but well beaten by a 99 Yquem served blind next to it. Last year I thought an 03 Yquem was superior to the most excellent 01 Rieussec next to it. In both instances the class wine prevailed over the very good wine from the better vintage.

My favorites so far to be had under $40 are 2004 Lascombes, Duhart Milon & Montrose. Looking forward to drinking Ducru Beaucaillou and Cos Estournel in the near future.

Antonio,

Where are you finding '04 Montrose for < $40? This has been my “hidden gem” wine this year, and I thought I was getting a steal at $60.

I totally agree with you about '04 in general, and I’m a fan of '03 as well (albeit a little pricier). I’ve also been surprised by some '07’s that I’ve popped out of curiosity. I highly recommend the '07 Leoville Poyferre (around $70 in my neck of the woods). It’s highway robbery compared to the $300+ '09!

K&L wines had the Montrose for sale at $39.99 but I’m sure its all gone. I don’t like what I’ve tasted so far in 2007 and find 2009 cru bourgeois much more interesting.

+1. I know there is a big disagreement regarding D’Yquem being a step above Climens and Rieussec but for me, there is no other chateau that can replicated the texture of D’Yquem which is so intense and concentrated yet so delicate and airy. BTW, I am a firm believer of the 03 D’Yquem, the best value if you are looking for the top D’Yquem experience. I would highly recommend to buy a bottle and drink over two weeks as initially it may feel fat and slightly cloying but with air, it will get brighter and precise without losing the fruit intensity.